General Discussion (dev branch)

[reyhard 2082]

12 hours ago, zukov said:

"Tweaked: AK-12 hand animations were improved "

the horrible finger on GL?

Broken wrist & finger on main trigger

15 hours ago, haleks said:

 

Oh boy.

Anyone has more details on this? I'm very very curious.

Tanoa & Malden were using wrong inheritance in EnvSounds so CfgEnvSpatialSounds wasn't inheriteted properly from core cfgEnvSounds. It should be now possible to make assets using CfgEnvSpatialSounds  memory points tech working across all island. Kudos to @mondkalb for pointing it out

[winse 22]

Guys, I have no Idea if this is a known issue, but do you know vehicle randomization doesn't work in MP?

 

Have the following:

-Any MP scenario, e.g. Zeus for the sake of simplicity

-Client1 - plays as Zeus

-Client2 - plays as a player

-Client1 - creates some vehicle with randomization support, e.g. "I_G_Offroad_01_F"

-After the vehicle is created, Client1 sees it with a random set of modules (doors, bumpers e.t.c.) and in a random camo

-But the Client2 sees it with a correct set of modules as the Client1, but in a default camo

 

This bug has been noticed starting from the latest game patch.

 

[winse 22]

PS: used Zeus just as an example. Behavior is the same for "createVehicle" executed on clients.

[Tankbuster 1746]

1 hour ago, winse said:

Guys, I have no Idea if this is a known issue, but do you know vehicle randomization doesn't work in MP?

 

Have the following:

-Any MP scenario, e.g. Zeus for the sake of simplicity

-Client1 - plays as Zeus

-Client2 - plays as a player

-Client1 - creates some vehicle with randomization support, e.g. "I_G_Offroad_01_F"

-After the vehicle is created, Client1 sees it with a random set of modules (doors, bumpers e.t.c.) and in a random camo

-But the Client2 sees it with a correct set of modules as the Client1, but in a default camo

 

This bug has been noticed starting from the latest game patch.

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

1 hour ago, winse said:

Guys, I have no Idea if this is a known issue, but do you know vehicle randomization doesn't work in MP?

 

Has been around for a while as stated by @Tankbuster, only solution, who'd have guessed, is to use a custom function to make MP stuff work in a MP game.

 

 

Cheers

[Tankbuster 1746]

What's worse is the BI fix and the associated BI functions don't work. The BIKI is misleading.

[winse 22]

5 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Has been around for a while as stated by @Tankbuster, only solution, who'd have guessed, is to use a custom function to make MP stuff work in a MP game.

The question is should we expect any official fix?

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

Fixed: Gunner turret searchlights would not follow turret movement (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T118330) 

HUZZAH! I had already written it off as forever broken ... today is a great day

[SuicideKing 233]

20 hours ago, Beagle said:

Active IFF is becoming a thing of the past, particularly since not all IFF systems, even inside NATO, are compatible. Modern Aircraft and SAM Radars use a programmed database and high frequenzy Radar modes for automatic radar target recognition (ARTR). The returns are compared with the database which is all the time updated with every system update That is why all those contacts with russian Aircraft over the Baltic Sea and Bering Strait are so precious.... every side collects data in such encounters.

Interesting! How would they differentiate say, a Russian MiG-29 from a Polish one, for example? I'm assuming they use an additional IFF check after that?

 

19 hours ago, GBee2 said:

In what sense shouldn't it work for vehicles? Radar equipped vehicles should be able to use IFF and I seem to remember that some ground vehicles were fitted with IFF transponders following a number of blue on blue incidents by US aircraft against US and allied ground forces?

Yeah i was thinking of non radar equipped vehicles. Didn't know they put them on other vehicles IRL. I'm...probably just a bit vary of it becoming like the old magic radar thing. But if they're careful... it could work. 

 

13 hours ago, b00ce said:

Something as small as a Stinger has an IFF interrogator. And it isn't unreasonable to say that its at the very least POSSIBLE to mount some sort of IFF to anything.

Yeah, fair enough then!

 

[Beagle 684]

11 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

Interesting! How would they differentiate say, a Russian MiG-29 from a Polish one, for example? I'm assuming they use an additional IFF check after that?

 

Yeah i was thinking of non radar equipped vehicles. Didn't know they put them on other vehicles IRL. I'm...probably just a bit vary of it becoming like the old magic radar thing. But if they're careful... it could work. 

 

Yeah, fair enough then!

 

It is not unusual to cross check targets with AWACS. The MiG-29 that were in Service with the Luftwaffe and are now in polish service had indeed no IFF compatible with NATO. For a while into the 2000's even the Luftwaffe Tornado IDS were unable to answer or receive IFF of modern NATO aircraft. They had to be specifically upgraded for the Flights over Syria.

[Tankbuster 1746]

22 hours ago, winse said:

The question is should we expect any official fix?

Your guess is as good as mine. :) In the thread I linked to describing the exact same issue, you see @Tom_48_97, did actually reply and took some interest in what was going on, but he played no further part in the thread or the issue beyond his only post there. No disrespect to him personally, but it does appear he's not actively engaged it in. See the AI driving thread for examples of how devs initially get involved and then, presumably get retasked.

 

That's not to say there won't be an out-of-the-blue fix for this. Things like that have happened before.

 

If you want, I'll share my fix for it, but it won't work in the Eden editor as it relies on a function running on the clients at runtime.

[winse 22]

@Tankbuster, thank you. I was thinking right about the SQF-level fix. I guess it is enough just to reapply the setObjectTextureGlobal after a vehicle is created?

[Tankbuster 1746]

3 hours ago, winse said:

@Tankbuster, thank you. I was thinking right about the SQF-level fix. I guess it is enough just to reapply the setObjectTextureGlobal after a vehicle is created?

Yes, that's how it's done but first, you have to get the texture that the game has applied to the vehicle and the setobjecttextureglobal it. Note that @Larrowhas posted in the earlier thread saying that the BI stuff is working, but I've not had a chance to look over what he's done yet.

[Lbbde 28]

I just noticed a few graphics errors
The aileron of the A-164 is not syncron. On the left, the aileron is much stronger than the right. The flight behavior is not impaired, but only for the optics that should be fixed :)
On the MQ-4A, the aileron responds equally on both sides (if you roll to the left both sides go up and if you roll to the right both sides go down) and the elevator is not animated at all. Whereby I'm not sure if this is a bug.
With the AN / MPQ-105 radar, the "Radar Shield" and the radar tower clipt through the platform on the trailer or trailer itself when it turns.
The MIM-134 SAM system clips at about 138 ° to 140 ° and at about 228 ° to 230 ° through the octagonal tube on the trailer.

[POLPOX 778]

I am not sure that this is a bug or not, if I set an object Simple Object in Eden Editor, play the scenario, the object behaves just usual Simple Object, and get back to the Editor, then the object is not a Simple Object anymore. It's possible to set it Simple Object again though, it raises my frustration real quick.

 

BTW, is there any possibility to trailer-mounted Praetorian just like the real-life counterpart?

[darkChozo 133]

Re: IFF, doesn't datalink already work as a sort of IFF system? Friendly units broadcast their position over the datalink network so they're identified much more readily. At least in my experience, it's really noticeable how much faster green squares show up vs. red squares on the sensor display.

 

2 hours ago, POLPOX said:

BTW, is there any possibility to trailer-mounted Praetorian just like the real-life counterpart?

 

It'd be nice to get just a plain trailer object that we could attach whatever we want to. Though failing that, there's always the plain trailerless HEMMT:

 

[pils 49]

On 20/07/2018 at 4:51 PM, darkChozo said:

Re: IFF, doesn't datalink already work as a sort of IFF system? Friendly units broadcast their position over the datalink network so they're identified much more readily. At least in my experience, it's really noticeable how much faster green squares show up vs. red squares on the sensor display.

 

 

It'd be nice to get just a plain trailer object that we could attach whatever we want to. Though failing that, there's always the plain trailerless HEMMT:

 

 

 

If only the system had the same capabilities like it has in real life. I'm really disappointed that the Praetorian is still nothing but an AA gun.

The real life counterpart, the Phalanx CIWS/C-RAM, has the ability to detect and intercept (shoot down) incoming mortar rounds, artillery shells, artillery missiles/rockets, AGMs, ATGMs, bombs, etc.

Both the Centurion and the Spartan should be able to intercept missiles. Especially the Spartan. In real life that system was developed for one main purpose: Intercept super sonic missiles - which means, it's capable of intercepting HARM (the kind of newly introduced radar seeking missiles) in real life. It also has a much higher rate of fire in real life. Same case with the Phalanx, but we all know about the limitation of the engine in case of Gatling Guns ...

[stanhope 411]

2 hours ago, pils said:

If only the system had the same capabilities like it has in real life. I'm really disappointed that the Praetorian is still nothing but an AA gun.

The real life counterpart, the Phalanx CIWS/C-RAM, has the ability to detect and intercept (shoot down) incoming mortar rounds, artillery shells, artillery missiles/rockets, AGMs, ATGMs, bombs, etc.

Both the Centurion and the Spartan should be able to intercept missiles. Especially the Spartan. In real life that system was developed for one main purpose: Intercept super sonic missiles.

There are multiple SQF scripts out there that make it do this.

[winse 22]

20 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

Yes, that's how it's done but first, you have to get the texture that the game has applied to the vehicle and the setobjecttextureglobal it.

Well, if I'd have to apply a random set of textures, I actually even don't need to figure out which textures were set by BIS. Just set my own random textures globally.

20 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

Note that @Larrowhas posted in the earlier thread saying that the BI stuff is working, but I've not had a chance to look over what he's done yet.

I saw the code of BIS_fnc_initVehicle , it looks correct, and it works correctly if applied by hand in MP - I checked. My thoughts regarding the source of the issue were - maybe the setObjectTextureGlobal command doesn't sync textures through a network if applied to a just-created vehicle. I can't assume anything else right now.

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

The "Unload Incapacitated" user action is still being sorted above common actions like "Get in back"

 

[pils 49]

On 21.7.2018 at 10:40 AM, stanhope said:

There are multiple SQF scripts out there that make it do this.

If that feature is so easy to implement, why aren't the Devs just finally implementing it? There are tons of people playing CTI who'd love to finally have a working C-RAM.

About 2 months ago I couldn't find a single mod that reliably enabled stated feature.

Plus, having a feature in the vanilla game is always the better way. Most servers run the vanilla game with just a few optional mods that only affect players individually (like sound mods). 

Server which require a set of mods get less frequently visited by random players. The workshop is already extremely helpful compared to back in the days of Operation Flashpoint and Arma 2, but a lot of people still don't like the "hassle" of having to download mods in order to play on a certain server. I know, it's sometimes hard to understand for us hardcore Arma lovers. But it's the reality. Which means, a lot of servers which require a set of mods to be able to play on are stuck with a very limited number of people who regularly play on that server.

[heavygunner 179]

37 minutes ago, pils said:

If that feature is so easy to implement, why aren't the Devs just finally implementing it? There are tons of people playing CTI who'd love to finally have a working C-RAM.

No one said it was easy, also BIS doesn't want scripted solutions in order to not impact the absymal performance even more.

[oukej 2910]

On 7/16/2018 at 3:33 PM, Ivanoff.N said:

The new AA introduced on DEV branch are not working correctly.

Radar sees enemy targets at 16k - yes. Radar determines what the target is therefore can identify its side - yes.

The AI inside the launcher however does not engage these targets until they fly by and it can physically see them.

So while in theory using the UAV terminal I can do a 16k AA shot, the AI inside the launcher does not engage until the enemy aircraft is within visible range of less than 1km.

Fixed in the next dev-branch update. Thanks everyone for the feedback and notes!

[pils 49]

1 hour ago, heavygunner said:

No one said it was easy, also BIS doesn't want scripted solutions in order to not impact the absymal performance even more.

I know they don't.

So how hard would it be?

Manageable for BIS Devs to implement with a reasonable (not overly massive) amount of work that is justified considering the numerous benefits such a feature would mean?

Compared to implementing all the good looking interior of the destroyer? More or less work?

Because that feature is worth multiple times having a ship with such nice, detailed interior that's static anyway. One rather simple bridge, a hangar and a place to put boats into the water plus a simple a way to spawn at each point would have been sufficient. Just like you can't see crawling crew inside a tank from the driver to the gunner position. Arma isn't really made for firefights inside very narrow structures. So you won't see a whole lot of missions that will utilize all that well made ship interior. But the ships would be awesome in CTI missions - however, only if there is a possibility to defend them against something as simple as mortar fire.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Oh by the way. Devs, it would be really cool if you could make the ship cannon a bit more realistic. It should have 127mm, get another magazine with armor piercing shells, have a much higher ammunition capacity, a much higher rate of fire and an artillery computer. (A longer barrel that features a hydraulic recoil dampening system would be cool, too.)

For example, the most used ship cannon in the world has all those stated features. It has a rate of fire of 32 round per minute. 

Alright, let's say the ship is American, so they will still use the inferior American made 5 inch (= 127mm as well) gun: Link.

Rate of fire: 20 rounds per minute. Number of different type of projectiles the magazine can store: 9. Total ammunition capacity in the Arleigh-Burke-Class destroyer: 680 rounds.

Mk 45 gun in action

 

Guys, never forget: "Form follows function."

No matter how pretty a new asset is and how cool it may look, if it lacks its real life function/features/properties, it's of no use for a game like Arma 3. (At least it should be as close to its real life counterpart as possible).

Most people who play Arma 3 seek authenticity and realism. Yes, the new destroyer looks awesome. But if you can defeat it with something as simple as a mortar and if its gun has nowhere near the features of a real life naval gun, the shiny new asset will add little to the most crucial aspect of the game: The gameplay.

 

 

(Sorry for all that bitching. I wouldn't complain if this was the first time we get to play with the new assets. But that's not the case. That's actually a release candidate version, so we might end up with a very pretty new asset that however lacks a lot of its real life functionality in the main branch very soon if nobody is bitching.)

[heavygunner 179]

Obviously it's not that easy, since the idea is not new and BIS decided against  it.

 

The ship also wasn't done by BIS and people making 3D models are probably not the ones working on such features anyway.

 

For the artillery gun see here: